 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Clearly there are 2 Parties in conflict throughout the history of mankind as such:
The Criminal Party
The Party formed in defense against the Criminal Party
The Criminal Party has learned a long time ago that they gain a tactical advantage when they counterfeit the opposition Party. When the Criminal Party poses as the Defense Party, the Defense Party is thereby rendered defenseless in fact as demonstrated very well throughout the history of mankind.
Why then is it time and again apparently so easy for the Criminal Party to get away with this obvious fraud?
Here is where it pays to learn the Criminal Party dogma, as previously offered in a quote from the introduction in a book by Nicola Machiavelli titled The Prince.
Here again:
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
The Prince, Nicolo Machiavelli (Introduction)
The Criminal Party members know how to craft a false message that projects their malignant thoughts onto their targeted victims, and that projection of false evil projected by evil people onto innocent people - so as to falsely justify intended criminal acts - constitute the basic tactical advantage previously spelled out. The targeted victims are misdirected to a point at which the targeted victims defend their enslavement in a collective manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome.
An actual member of the actual Defense Party will be violently destroyed by dupes who are caught by the fundamental lie, dupes who are caught and thereby inspired to attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about the fundamental lie.
The fundamental lie is restated time and again - various forms - throughout history, just as it was done in the quote from The Prince. This now is a lead-in to another restatement of that fundamental lie, where the restatement of the fundamental lie is retold in a book claimed to be a history of law in America.
Before quoting it may be worth the effort to put this piece properly in place on the puzzling map of the ongoing struggle between the 2 distinct - opposing - parties. While the Defense Party (Liberty Party) is effectively rendered powerless by the Offense Party (Criminal Party), one would think that a little truth might go a long way, but that depends entirely on each individual member of either Party, and only when individuals are capable of waking up enough other individuals in the Liberty Party will there then be a collective sum total of individuals who are armed with enough facts that matter (the truth) to constitute an actual (rather than a counterfeit) defense.
The Liberty Party also produces messages that are published for consumption by members of the Liberty Party, and these messages are opposite the messages produced by members of the Criminal Party. An example in stark contrast to the message in The Prince (introduction) is the Golden Rule, a message crafted to inspire actual just thinking, which then may be followed by actual just action. Another example in stark contrast to the projecting of evil being projected by evil people onto their intended - innocent - victims is a document written by a member of the Criminal Party, as that member of the Criminal Party attempts to tell the truth, to confess, and to turn from the Criminal Party to the Liberty Party instead. That document goes by the name Declaration of Independence.
Clearly documented in human history at the time of what became known as the American Revolutionary War is the Criminal Party lies starkly contrasted by the Liberty Party facts that matter in that case where armies of people polarized by evil intend to cause injury to armies of people polarized by the facts that matter in that case.
That is my lead-in to the long quote that I think is worth the effort to transcribe from a book, placing the message in digital form, which can then be cut and pasted by anyone who cares to know these facts that matter in this case.
There is more to this puzzle piece because the two sides are always gaining or losing power as the lies infect the minds of individuals who would otherwise be polarized in such a way as to work effectively at the necessary work required to keep the criminals from hurting themselves and their victims in time and place. The purpose of law - actual not counterfeit - is to deter crime before it ripens in the minds of individual people, and that is accomplished by telling or finding the truth, and spreading that truth that matters in any case; caveat emptor.
Who claims Divine Right to Rule arbitrarily, and it is worth the effort to dispel such falsehoods?
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
“Virginia was the clearest instance of a land of conquest, but it was by no means the only one. The early charters and letters patent are all liberally scattered with references to conquests and occupations, which for some jurists at least, seem to have been taken to be the same thing. Occupation, declared the most influential of them, Sir Edward Coke, “signifieth a putting out of a man’s freehold in time of warre...occupare is sometimes taken to conquer.”
“The initial claim that America was a land of conquest, was not, however, made in isolation. It was but one, of which the annexation of India by the British Crown in 1858 was to be perhaps the last, of a long series of “conquests,” some more obviously so than others: the conquest of Wales, completed in 1536; the conquest, or at least the seizure, of the Channel Islands (although this was not completed until 1953); the conquest of the Isle of Man in 1406; the prolonged conquests of Ireland between 1175 and 1603; and the initial attempt at union with Scotland or of the subordination of Scotland to an English Parliament, which was to become one of the issues at stake in the Civil War, in 1603. For more than two centuries before the first colonies were established on the eastern seaboard of North America, England has been in a state of constant and determined expansion. It was to remain more or less uninterruptedly in this state until World War I.
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering" the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
“Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settled and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."
"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World , both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both , as soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
“By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which , at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."
“Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For if America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law.”
That is a puzzle piece on the war map between lies and crime on one side and truth and justice on the other side, and there are clearly defined borders between the two parties. I felt the need to stop quoting mid stream, as the clearly defined borders between the two parties are only clear to those who are solidly on either side. To those who are caught in the middle there is darkness, confusion, misdirection, and defenselessness; a powerless state, and a ripeness for exploitation.